retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Responding to last week's story about how a norovirus outbreak was traced to as reusable grocery bag that was placed on a bathroom floor, one MNB user wrote:

Shopping bags are probably not nearly as prevalent as a woman’s purse.  I bet not all the stalls have purse hooks, and even if they did the key term here was “viral particles floated” to the bag.  On the floor or not, a purse would have also been susceptible.

This seems to be a theme, as another MNB user wrote:

Now you know why women are so concerned about what to do with their purses when using a public restroom...

I actually didn't know that.

And MNB user VL Chendorani added:

I have been waiting for something like this to hit the airwaves. Reusable bags aren't all they are cracked up to be! I get the environmental side of all this but these folks aren't looking at the big picture. I was involved in developing a Reusable Bag for the Grocery chain I worked for. We included our Quality Assurance department in the development. What came out of our due diligence was the fact that MOST reusable bags harbor bugs and as your story states, viruses. so our mission was to develop a bag that met these issues.

Our problem was having customers bring bugs/viruses into our stores, which is happening at an alarming rate!

We succeeded in our quest by figuring out why the bugs/viruses like the bags. Light for the most part played a big part in the bug issue. So our bag was a design that had an open weave to it yet was very sturdy. It was a coated vinyl so was clearly washable which took care of the virus issues. Retailers should pay attention to this issue, but alas have their minds on other issues and rightfully so.





Regarding our story about how an advocacy group is petitioning the White House to make sure that unhealthy foods - like hot dogs - never are shown in official photos, MNB user John
Baragar wrote:

You missed the point about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine – a colossal lack of transparency.  You write about this a lot on MNB - calls for transparency in advertising. labeling and you call out MNB’s link anytime you have a connection to a story or company.

Yes, their petition is foolish, but it has nothing to do with healthy eating.  Their agenda is to get you to stop eating meat or any other product produced by animals.  They cloak it in a “healthy eating” agenda because that is more palatable than promoting veganism.  An even finer point is that their veganism agenda is not about healthy eating, it is about Animal Rights.  They have no problem if you eat unhealthy as long as it does not involve a product produced using an animal.  They didn’t mention President Reagan’s love of Jelly Beans (which was widely reported) or the numerous campaign stops eating apple pie or doughnuts.

The PCRM is a radical animal rights group, not a group interested in your health.  One need look no further than their main source of funds to get at their real intent – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.   Even their name is intended to mislead.  In fact, there are very few “physicians” even affiliated with the them (the AMA regularly denounces their “studies” and tactics).

I have no problem with people who believe that you should not eat meat and I support anyone who chooses to live and promote a vegan lifestyle, but the PCRM uses questionable tactics at best and at worst uses outright false information.  Anytime you feel the need to go to such great lengths to mislead and hide your real purpose, you will ultimately hurt those that are honest and upfront about it.





On another subject, one MNB user wrote:

"Back to the basics" ! Your not the only one that hates the term, Kevin. You can throw me on that pile too. Good managers don't usually need to go "Back to the basics ". They never forgot them to begin with.




Finally, it is only on MNB that you'll read an email like this one...

It’ll be interesting to see how many e-mails you get on this vs. the many more important things you report about...

You erroneously called Hulk’s alter ego David Banner, instead of his actual name Bruce Banner.  Innocent enough mistake, but the interesting part is where “David” actually came from.  When CBS was going to put The Incredible Hulk on TV back in the 70’s, the name Bruce was deemed to be too much of a homosexual stereotype or not macho enough, so they made the producers change the name to David.  Could you imagine that happening now and what kind of (totally appropriate) outcry there would be within minutes of release?  Thought since how you reference the need for transparency and full disclosure all the time, this was worth mentioning.


I love emails like this...because it illustrates the breadth of the MNB audience.

You are absolutely right.

The funny thing is that I had just that conversation with my family when the movie came out. Mrs. Content Guy called him David Banner, and I explained that it was Bruce Banner, and used almost exactly the same words you did. Then, when I wrote my Avengers review, I had brain freeze.

Not the worst mistake I've ever made ... but the broader point you make is a good one, that public attitudes towards certain things have changed dramatically over the years - it was just the late seventies that the name "Bruce" was not used because of a supposedly "gay" connotation.

Thank goodness the world has changed. IMHO...
KC's View: